DCIT 2(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. BAJAJ ELECTRICALS LTD, MUMBAI

Accordingly we remit the impugned issue back to the AO with similar directions. The grounds raised by the assessee in this regard are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

254/- (v) Disallowance of commission - Rs. 1,07,47,659/- 3. Aggrieved the assessee filed further appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) gave partial relief towards the disallowance made under section 14A r.w.r. 8D and confirmed the other additions/disallowances made by the AO. Aggrieved the assessee is in appeal before us contending the following issues: (i) Additional disallowance

BAJAJ ELECTRICALS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT 2(1), MUMBAI

Accordingly we remit the impugned issue back to the AO with similar directions. The grounds raised by the assessee in this regard are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

254/- (v) Disallowance of commission - Rs. 1,07,47,659/- 3. Aggrieved the assessee filed further appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) gave partial relief towards the disallowance made under section 14A r.w.r. 8D and confirmed the other additions/disallowances made by the AO. Aggrieved the assessee is in appeal before us contending the following issues: (i) Additional disallowance

BAJAJ ELECTRICALS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT 2(1), MUMBAI

Accordingly we remit the impugned issue back to the AO with similar directions. The grounds raised by the assessee in this regard are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

254/- (v) Disallowance of commission - Rs. 1,07,47,659/- 3. Aggrieved the assessee filed further appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) gave partial relief towards the disallowance made under section 14A r.w.r. 8D and confirmed the other additions/disallowances made by the AO. Aggrieved the assessee is in appeal before us contending the following issues: (i) Additional disallowance

THE GEM & JEWELLERY EXPORT PROMOTION COUNCIL,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT (E) RG 2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for 10

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2012-13 & Assessment Year: 2013-14 The Gem & Jewellery Export Acit (Exemptions) Range- Promotion Council, 2(1), Vs. Tower-A, Aw-1010, G Block, 5Th Floor, Room No. 519, Bharat Diamond Bourse, Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, B.K.C., Bandra East, Mumbai-400012. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aaatt 3202 H Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 The Gem & Jewellery Export Dcit (Exemptions) Range- Promotion Council, 2(1), Tower-A, Aw-1010, G Block, Vs. 5Th Floor, Piramal Chambers, Bharat Diamond Bourse, Lalbaug, B.K.C., Bandra East, Mumbai-400012. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aaatt 3202 H Appellant Respondent

Section 2(15). indicated by proviso (ii) to Section 2(15). 174. The insertion of Section 13(8)144 , the seventeenth 74. The insertion of Section 13(8)144 , the seventeenth 74. The insertion of Section 13(8)144 , the seventeenth proviso to Section 10(23C) and third proviso to Section proviso to Section 10(23C) and third proviso

TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT - 8(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

2(9) of the Act. In the light of the above discussion, we are of the clear view that the Tribunal erred in coming to a conclusion that it is not the intention of the Parliament to authorize an Indian insurer to have re-insurance outside the country ignoring the provisions of Insurance Act referred above. The Tribunal

HDFC BANK LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee's appeal for AY 2016-17 to AY 2018-19 is allowed and the Revenue's appeal for AY 2016-17 to 2018-19 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

2)(iii) only those investments yielding exempt income should be considered for the purpose of disallowance. The CIT(A) had not given any finding with regard to the plea of the assessee that the disallowance should be restricted to the suo-moto disallowance made by the assessee. The contention of the assessee in this regard is two fold

HDFC BANK LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee's appeal for AY 2016-17 to AY 2018-19 is allowed and the Revenue's appeal for AY 2016-17 to 2018-19 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

2)(iii) only those investments yielding exempt income should be considered for the purpose of disallowance. The CIT(A) had not given any finding with regard to the plea of the assessee that the disallowance should be restricted to the suo-moto disallowance made by the assessee. The contention of the assessee in this regard is two fold

HDFC BANK LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee's appeal for AY 2016-17 to AY 2018-19 is allowed and the Revenue's appeal for AY 2016-17 to 2018-19 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

2)(iii) only those investments yielding exempt income should be considered for the purpose of disallowance. The CIT(A) had not given any finding with regard to the plea of the assessee that the disallowance should be restricted to the suo-moto disallowance made by the assessee. The contention of the assessee in this regard is two fold

DCIT 2(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. HDFC BANK LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee's appeal for AY 2016-17 to AY 2018-19 is allowed and the Revenue's appeal for AY 2016-17 to 2018-19 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

2)(iii) only those investments yielding exempt income should be considered for the purpose of disallowance. The CIT(A) had not given any finding with regard to the plea of the assessee that the disallowance should be restricted to the suo-moto disallowance made by the assessee. The contention of the assessee in this regard is two fold

DCIT 2(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. HDFC BANK LIMITED , MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee's appeal for AY 2016-17 to AY 2018-19 is allowed and the Revenue's appeal for AY 2016-17 to 2018-19 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

2)(iii) only those investments yielding exempt income should be considered for the purpose of disallowance. The CIT(A) had not given any finding with regard to the plea of the assessee that the disallowance should be restricted to the suo-moto disallowance made by the assessee. The contention of the assessee in this regard is two fold

DCIT-2(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. HDFC BANK LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee's appeal for AY 2016-17 to AY 2018-19 is allowed and the Revenue's appeal for AY 2016-17 to 2018-19 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

2)(iii) only those investments yielding exempt income should be considered for the purpose of disallowance. The CIT(A) had not given any finding with regard to the plea of the assessee that the disallowance should be restricted to the suo-moto disallowance made by the assessee. The contention of the assessee in this regard is two fold

BAJAJ ELECTRICALS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT 2(1), MUMBAI

Accordingly we remit the impugned\nissue back to the AO with similar directions. The grounds raised by the assessee in\nthis regard are allowed for statistical purposes

254/-\n(v) Disallowance of commission\n- Rs.\n1,07,47,659/-\n3.\nAggrieved the assessee filed further appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A)\ngave partial relief towards the disallowance made under section 14A r.w.r. 8D and\nconfirmed the other additions/disallowances made by the AO. Aggrieved the\nassessee is in appeal before us contending the following issues

ACIT - 2(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. YES BANK LIMITED, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Acit-2(2)(2), Room No. 545, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400020. Appellant Yes Bank Ltd., 15Th Floor, Yes Bank Tower, Ifc 2, Senapati Bapat Marg, Elphistone (West), Mumbai-400013. Pan No. Aaacy 2068 D Appellant Assessee By Revenue By Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement

2,96,81,323/-towards earning of exempted income and disallowed the same for the purpose of section 14A of the Act, while computing its income for the purpose of filing return of income. 6.7 The Assessing Officer, however expressed his dissatisfaction on the claim of the assessee of suo-motu disallowance of expenses computed under section

DCIT 2(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. YES BANK LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer in ITA number 3238/M/2018 for assessment year 2013 –

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

disallowance on this account is deleted." 7. We find that during the year 2007-08, the company incurred debenture expenses of ₹ 2.07 crores and QIB issue expenditure of ₹ 8.28 crores, both totalling to ₹ 10.35 crores. The expenditure referred to above of ₹ 10.35 crores was adjusted against the share premium account as per the provision of the Companies Act. However

DCIT- 2(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. YES BANK LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer in ITA number 3238/M/2018 for assessment year 2013 –

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

disallowance on this account is deleted." 7. We find that during the year 2007-08, the company incurred debenture expenses of ₹ 2.07 crores and QIB issue expenditure of ₹ 8.28 crores, both totalling to ₹ 10.35 crores. The expenditure referred to above of ₹ 10.35 crores was adjusted against the share premium account as per the provision of the Companies Act. However

YES BANK LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 2 (2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer in ITA number 3238/M/2018 for assessment year 2013 –

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

disallowance on this account is deleted." 7. We find that during the year 2007-08, the company incurred debenture expenses of ₹ 2.07 crores and QIB issue expenditure of ₹ 8.28 crores, both totalling to ₹ 10.35 crores. The expenditure referred to above of ₹ 10.35 crores was adjusted against the share premium account as per the provision of the Companies Act. However

YES BANK LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT - 2(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer in ITA number 3238/M/2018 for assessment year 2013 –

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

disallowance on this account is deleted." 7. We find that during the year 2007-08, the company incurred debenture expenses of ₹ 2.07 crores and QIB issue expenditure of ₹ 8.28 crores, both totalling to ₹ 10.35 crores. The expenditure referred to above of ₹ 10.35 crores was adjusted against the share premium account as per the provision of the Companies Act. However

DCIT- 2(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. YES BANK LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer in ITA number 3238/M/2018 for assessment year 2013 –

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

disallowance on this account is deleted." 7. We find that during the year 2007-08, the company incurred debenture expenses of ₹ 2.07 crores and QIB issue expenditure of ₹ 8.28 crores, both totalling to ₹ 10.35 crores. The expenditure referred to above of ₹ 10.35 crores was adjusted against the share premium account as per the provision of the Companies Act. However

YES BANK LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 2(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer in ITA number 3238/M/2018 for assessment year 2013 –

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

disallowance on this account is deleted." 7. We find that during the year 2007-08, the company incurred debenture expenses of ₹ 2.07 crores and QIB issue expenditure of ₹ 8.28 crores, both totalling to ₹ 10.35 crores. The expenditure referred to above of ₹ 10.35 crores was adjusted against the share premium account as per the provision of the Companies Act. However